1549 
.B7P159 



Km 



*^ 




ffi: 



m 



III 



i 



i 












'^^^^^»^'\#' 
<> V^ 















hK' -^ 









V-. 






?- 







' •» o 



r* > <i rtv\ 



^ ^jm^. %,..^' <::^^i^' 









' o. 









i:- 














' A 











obX ^^ i^ ^. '^•^ 






^ A 



-^" . 












■c'. 




v^ 




















f: 



rO 










^ A -; 










O J.* 



/ X 'W:^^ . ^''^^^ . '^ JK IP . A. ^fll" ... 



/" ^^&v '^• 




■< -^-0^ 





.0^ 



-^^ 




< o 













■ N 



<^ 



^ • • o^ CV 












Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/arbitrationbefor02pana 



ARBITRATION 



BEFORE 



The Honorable Edward D. White 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 

OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 

The Republic of Panama 

AND 

The Republic of Costa Rica 



Respecting the interpretation and application of 
the award made by Emile Loubet, President 
of the French Republic, on September 11, 1913, 
concerning the boundary between the territories 
of the two parties :: :: :: :: :: 



Statement on Behalf of the Republic of Panama 






D. of u. 
FEB H I9I6 



(JjX. 



& 



Arbitration 

BEFORE 

THE HONORABLE EDWARD D. WHITE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 

REPUBLIC OF PANAMA and the REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA 

RESPECTING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AWAKD MADE BY EmILE 

Lodbet, President of the French Republic, on September 11th, 1900, concerning 

THE boundary LINE BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES OF THE TWO PARTIES. 



STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA. 



I. The SUBJECT of this arbitration. 

The present arbitration arises upon a convention made at Washington on March 
17th, 1910, between the Republic of Panama and the Republic of Costa Rica. 

Article I. of this convention states the question submitted to arbitration as 
follows : 

" What is the boundary between Panama and Costa Rica under and 
most in accordance with the correct interpretation and true intention of the 
Award of the President of the French Republic made the 11th of September, 
1900?" 

The question does not, however, involve the whole boundary line, for the Article 
further states that the two Republics consider the line described by President Loubet 

" clear and indisputable in the region of the Pacific from Punta Burica to a 
point beyond Cerro Pando on the Central Cordillera near the ninth degree of 
north latitude." 

It is, therefore, only that part of the Award of President Loubet which relates 
to so much of the line described by him as lies between the Atlantic and this 



2 

point on the Central Cordillera wliicli is now submitted for interpretation by the 
present Arbitration. 

Article I. further provides that : 

" In order to decide this the Arbitrator will take into account all the 
facts, circumstances, and considerations which may have a bearing upon the 
case, as well as the limitation of the Loubet Award expressed in the letter of 
His Excellency Monsieur Delcass^, Minister of Foreign Relations of France, 
to His Excellency Senor Peralta, Minister of Costa Kica in Paris, of Novem- 
ber 23, 1900, that this boundary line must be drawn within the confines of 
the territory in dispute as determined by the Convention of Paris between the 
Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica of January 20, 1886." 

This arbitration, therefore, starts from the Award of President Loubet as a fixed 
datum. That Award is final, binding and conclusive. It is not to be impeached or ques- 
tioned. By the present convention both parties formally and solemnly record their 
acceptance of it and only seek to have solved their difi'erences concerning its exact and 
true meaning and purpose, that they may abide by and conform to it. Where they are 
already agreed as to its " correct interpretation and true intention," they ask nothing 
more. Where they difi"er as to this " correct interpretation and true intention," they 
ask that the Arbitrator decide. When he has fully elucidated President Loubet's 
Award, the controversy between them is over. By the very terms of the present con- 
vention that Award is recognized as final, and the only question is as to what compli- 
ance with it requires. 

The Arbitrator is asked to fix the boundary line " under and most in accordance 
with the correct interpretation and true intention " of President Loubet's Award. 

It was recognized that, by possibility, some part of the description of the line in 
the Award might not exactly accord with the physical characteristics of the country 
through which it runs. As was stated in the letter of M. Delcasse, the French 
Minister of Foreign Affairs to Senor de Peralta, the Costa Rican Minister, 
of November 23rd, 1900, ^ to which Article I of the present convention refers, 
the lack of detailed information compelled President Loubet to describe the line 
fixed by him, in general terms. Therefore, it might be that the present Arbitrator 
would find not precisely the geographical features described by President Loubet, or, 
perhaps, assumed by him as the basis of his Award. 

» Posi, p. 7. 



4 



In such case it migbt be that merely the " correct interpretation ", in a verbal 
sense, of President Lonbet's Award, would not su£5ce to solve the difference between 
tlie two Republics. For such a contingency it is provided that the present Arbitrator 
may have recourse, not merely to an interpretation of the language of the Award, but 
to its " true intention ", and, if he cannot fix an exact line precisely as the Award 
describes it, he is to fix such line as shall be " most in accordance with " not only 
the " correct interpretation " but also the " true intention " of the Award made by 
President Loubet. 

The Convention further provides that in fixing the line the Arbitrator 

" will take into account all the facts, circumstances and considerations which 
may have a bearing upon the case." 

This, however, really adds nothing to what had been before expressed. It would 
be impossible for the Arbitrator to ignore these things in interpreting the Award and 
determining its " true intention ". 

If, indeed, the Arbitrator find that the " correct interpretation " of the Award is 
plain, and that no ambiguity, patent or latent, exists, extraneous circumstances can- 
not justify assigning to it any other effect than that which its words import. To do 
otherwise would be, not to interpret, but to modify the Award, and so to do what the 
Convention does not contemplate nor authorize. 

But if an ambiguity should appear, or if, because, in any part, the line cannot be 
drawn exactly as described in the Award, it becomes necessary for the present Arbi- 
trator to determine the line " most in accordance with " " the true intention " of 
President Loubet, then, to resolve the ambiguity or to determine the " true intention," 
he must, necessarily and even if the convention had not expressed it, " take into ac- 
count all the facts, circumstances and considerations which may have a bearing upon 
the case." 

These words of the Convention, therefore, do not affect the scope of the Arbi- 
tration nor bring into it anything which would not otherwise have been there. They 
neither restrict nor enlarge the powers of the Arbitrator. No appeal to extraneous 
circumstances can prevent him from following the exact terms of the Award, if he find 
them clear, unambiguous and applicable to the geographical situation as it exists. 
As little can they justify any departure from or modification of the Award, where it 
can be applied according to its terms. 



The further reference in the Convention to the limitation of the award expressed 
in the letter of M. Delcass^ to Senor de Peralta,^ 

" that this boundary line must be drawn within the confines of the territory 
in dispute as determined by the Conventioa of Paris between tbe Kepublic 
of Colombia and the Eepublic of Costa Eica of January 20, 1886 ", 

which the Arbitrator is also to take into account, has a higher significance. 

If President Loubet had undertaken to award to either party territory not in 
dispute, a case of ultra petita would have arisen. What would or might have been 
the result had such a thing occurred and had either party undertaken to object on 
that ground, is a question not now arising. 

The significance of this provision of the present convention is two-fold. 

First ; it recognises the limitation in question as incorporated in and forming 
part of the Award, so that, even if the objection of ultra petita could now be available 
and were otherwise well-founded, it can no longer be said to exist. Under no circum- 
stances, can the Award be construed as laying down a line which is outside the limits 
fixed. It is as if a proviso to that efi'ect were expressly contained in the Award ; 
and the parties agree that it was, in fact, the intention of the Arbitrator to draw the 
line wholly within the territory in dispute. 

Second ; the provision in question constitutes a new affirmation by the parties 
that no defect of wZ^ra joeii7a exists in the Award and if the language of the Award 
could be so construed as, otherwise, to entail it, still the Award would not be impaired 
thereby. If the line described by President Loubet did, in any part, lie outside the 
territory in dispute, this limitation would prevent any difficulty from that cause. The 
" true intention " of the Award being established, that the line should lie " within the 
confines of the territory in dispute," it would then be for the present Arbiti'ator 
to modify that part of the line so tbat it should accord with that intention, 
but nothing more would be needed. It would be merely an occasion for the 
exercise of the present Arbitrator's powers, but would not interfere with the course of 
this arbitration nor at all invalidate President Loubet 's Award. 

That the line described in the Award involves no ultra petita, is, we think, un- 
questionable, but, if it did, it would, in view of this provision, constitute merely such 



» Post, p. 7. 



a difficulty as would arise if there had been a reference to some natural feature of the 
country which does not, in fact, exist. That is, the languaf!;e of the Award could not 
be literally followed, and it would become the duty of the Arbitrator to select such 
line as should be " most in accordance " with the Award and should avoid the diffi- 
culty. 

That occasion will not arise ; but the provision in question has importance in 
that it removes all question of ultra petita from the case and shows the intention of 
both parties that no technical objection shall be allowed to impair the full efifect 
of the Award, but that it shall stand in all its force according to its "correct ii^ter- 
pretation and true intention ", as the Arbitrator shall determine them to be. 

With the original question of boundaries, submitted to President Loubet, we 
have, then, nothing to do. Upon this arbitration we do not know, and have no 
occasion to inquire, what were tlie merits of that controver.sy, what documents or 
other proofs were before President Loubet, nor what his reasons were for his decision. 

Nor are we at liberty to consider anything concerning the regularity or validity 
of his Award. All those matters are settled by the Convention, which takes the 
Award as a perfect and complete adjudication and leaves for consideration here only 
its interpretation and application. We are, indeed, to consider what was the question 
submitted to President Loubet and what was the territory in dispute before him, in 
order to see whether the limitation of the Award stated in M. Delcasse's letter 
to Senor de Peralta has, in fact, any practical application ; but no further. 

It is not a question, upon this arbitration, whether President Loubet rendered a 
right award, nor even a valid award ; by the Convention both parties have agreed 
that the Award was both valid and right and have removed those questions from the 
field of debate. 

Indeed, could the Award be questioned in any way, this arbitration could have 
no purpose and must end ; for the question submitted to the Arbitrator does not 
include such questions and it would be futile for him to interpret an award which was 
not in the first place accepted as binding and perfect. His own award would be 
inefi^ective if it construed and applied an award which might itself be set aside. 

No such futile proceeding was contemplated. The Award of President Loubet is, 
by the mere fact of the present arbitration, as well as by the terms of the Convention 
under which it takes place, made binding, perfect and not open to question in any way 
or upon any ground. 

It remains, therefore, next to consider what that Award is and upon what contro- 
versy it was made. 



II. The Loubet Award. 

The Award of President Loubet was the result of an arbitration between the 
Hepublic of Colombia (then the sovereign of tlie territories now constituting the 
Republic of Panama) and the Eepublic of Costa Eica, of the question of the boundary 
between them, which had been a subject of dispute ever since they had come into 
independent existence. 

The original convention of arbitration of this question was that signed at San 
Jose on December 25th, 1880, between the United States of Colombia (the predecessor 
of the Republic of Colombia) and the Republic of Costa Rica, by which the King of 
the Belgians, or, should he decline, the King of Spain was selected as arbitrator. * 

The King of Spain having accepted the office, pi'oceedings were begun before him, 
but were not concluded before his death, and by an additional convention, signed at 
Paris on January 22d, 1886, it was agreed that, notwithstanding the King's death, the 
arbitration might proceed before " the Government of Spain. "^ 

By a further convention, however, signed at Bogotd on November 4th, 1896, 
between the Republic of Colombia (which had, in the meantime, succeeded the United 
States of Colombia) and the Republic of Costa Rica, the designation of " the Govern- 
ment of Spain " as arbitrator was changed and the President of the French Republic 
was substituted in that ofBce.* 

Before him the arbitration proceeded and resulted in the Award made by him at 
Rambonillet on September 11th, 1900,* which is the subject of the present arbitration. 

The convention of December 25th, 1880, contained no statement of the claims of 
the respective parties, only stating in Article I that they 

" agree to submit to arbitration, the question^of boundaries existing between 
them, and the fixing of a line which shall divide, permanently and clearly, 
the territory of the first from that of the second." 

The convention of January 22d, 1886, however, contained a definition of the 
question in dispute, in the following terms : 

" Article II. 

The territorial limit which the Republic of Costa Rica claims, on the 
Atlantic side, reaches as far as the Island Escudo de Veraguas, and the 

* Appendix A, p. 27. 

• Appecdix B, p. SO. 

• Appendix C, p. 33. 

* Appendix D, p. 35., 



Kiver Chiriqui (Calobebora) inclusive ; and on the Pacific side, as far as the 
Eiver Chiriqui Viejo, inclusive, to the East of Point Burica. 

The territorial limit which the United States of Colombia claim reaches, 
on the Atlantic side, as far as Cape Gracias £ Dios, inclusive ; and on the 
Pacific side, as far as the mouth of the Eiver Golfito in Gulf Dulce." 

" Article III. 

The arbitral award shall confine itself to the disputed territory that lies 
within the extreme limits already described, and cannot affect in any manner 
any rights that a third party, who has not taken part in the arbitration, may 
set up to the ownership of the territory comprised within the limits in- 
dicated."! 

These articles were confirmed by Article V of the convention of November 4th, 
1896. 

The Award of President Loubet (so far as is here material) was as follows : 

" The frontier between the Republics of Colombia and Costa Rica shall 
be formed by the counterfort of the cordillera which starts from Cape Mona 
on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the Rio Tarire or 
Rio Sixola, then by the chain of division of waters between the Atlantic and 
the Pacific to 9 degrees, about, of latitude ; it will follow next the line of 
division of waters between the Chiriqui Viejo and the afliuents of Gulf Dulce 
to end at Point Burica on the Pacific Ocean ".^ 

On September 29th, 1900, Senor Don Manuel M. de Peralta, then Costa Rican 
Minister at Paris, addressed a letter to M. Delcass^, then French Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, asking approval of a boundary line, described by him with some particu- 
larity, but difi"ering from President Loubet's indicated line, as that meant by the 
Award. 3 

To this letter M. Delcasse replied, on November 23rd, as follows : 

" Paeis, November 23, 1900. 

Mr. Minister : 

Answering the request which yon have been pleased to express in 
your letters of September 29th and October 23rd ultimo, I have the honor 
to inform you that, on account of the lack of exact geographic data 
the Arbitrator has not been able to fix the boundary except by means of 



' Appendix B, p. 31. 
^ Appendix D, p. 36. 
" Appendix F, p. 38. 



general iudications. I think, therefore, that there would be difficulty in 
fixing them on a map. But there is no doubt, as you have observed, that, 
in conformity with the terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of Paris 
of January 20, 1886, this boundary line must be drawn within the confines of 
the territory in dispute, as they are determined by the text of said articles. 

It is iu accordance with these principles that it is for the Eepub- 
lics of Colombia and Costa Eica to proceed to the physical delimita- 
tion of their frontiers, and the Arbitrator trusts, on this point, to the spirit 
of conciliation and good understanding with which the two Governments in 
litigation have up to the present been inspired. 

Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the 
honor to be, Mr. Minister, your very humble and obedient servant. 

(Signed) Delcasse. 

Me. Manuel de Pebalta, 

Minister of Costa Eica in Paris." 

The foregoing data, we believe, comprise everything which bears directly upon 
the Award, its genesis, making and intent, except in so far as the surveys made under 
the direction of the present Arbitrator serve to make clear the application of the 
Award to the actual geographical situation as now ascertained in detail. 

III. " The Coekect Inteepeetation and Tkue Intention " of the Awaed. 

The question now to be considered is, as stated iu the convention under which 
this arbitration is held ; what is the boundary line to be, under this Award ? 

We are, by the terms of the convention, dispensed from a consideration of so 
much of the line as lies between Point Burica and a point beyond Cerro Pando on 
the central cordillera near the ninth degree of north latitude. So much of it is 
agreed by the parties to be " clear and indisputable." 

Our attention, then, is to be confined to that part of the line which lies between 
this point on the central cordillera, north of Cerro Pando, near the ninth degree of 
north latitude, and Punta Mona on the Atlantic. 

As to this part of the line two questions may arise : 

FiEST ; is it drawn, as described in the Award, wholly within the confines of the 
territory in dispute, as determined by Articles II and III of the convention of Jan- 
uary 20, 1886 ? 

Second ; if the line, as described in the Award, does so lie wholly within the terri- 
tory in dispute, can it be identified, in more detail, so as to be as " clear and indis- 
putable " as the parties have agreed that the remainder of the line already is ? 



.9 

Upon the former of these questions we conceive that no doubt or debate is 
possible. 

Article II of the convention of January 20th, 1886, states that — 

" The territorial limit which the Republic of Costa Rica claims, on the 
Atlantic side, reaches as far as the Island of Escudo do Veraguas, and the 
River Chiriqui (Calobebora) inclusive ; and on the Pacific side, as far as the 
River Chiriqui Viejo, inclusive, to the East of Point Burica. 

The territorial limit which the United States of Colombia claim reaches, 
on the Atlantic side, as far as Cape Gracias A Dios, inclusive ; and on the 
Pacific side, as far as the mouth of the River Golfito in Gulf Dulce." i 

Article III only provides that the award shall be confined to the disputed terri- 
tory within the limits fixed by Article II, and cannot afiect the rights of third parties. 
It is merely declaratory of what would be the riile, in any case. The reason for ex- 
pressing it will be seen by a glance at the map. Colombia claimed the whole Atlantic 
coast to Cape Gracias A Dios, which lies far north of the northern boundary of Costa 
Rica, and it was desired to avoid even the appearance of an attempt to pass upon the 
rights of Nicaragua in the territory' occupied and claimed by that republic. 

It will be noted that the only limitation which these Articles imposed upon the 
Arbitrator was with regard to the terminal points of the boundary which he should 
fix. He could not, upon the Atlantic, fix a line which should begin south or east of 
Escudo de Veraguas or the moiith of the river Chiriqui, nor north of the northern 
frontier of Costa Rica ; nor could he fix any line which should meet the Pacific at a 
point south of the Chiriqui Viejo or north of the Golfito. 

But except in this respect his jurisdiction was unlimited. No claim was made by 
either party as to interior lines and nothing in the treaty prescribes any rule upon the 
subject. So long as the terminal points lapon the two coasts were within those stated, 
he was at complete liberty, in the interior, to connect them by a line running in what- 
ever course he should think proper. 

The line actually fixed by the Award begins, on the Atlantic, at Punta Mona, 
which is north of the Chiriqui and, of course, far south of the northerly limit on that 
side. The line ends on the Pacific at Punta Burica, which is north of the Chiriqui 
Viejo and south of the Golfito. Thus the line is, and cannot but be, confined to the 
disputed territory and it does not touch the territory of any foreign power. 

As we have pointed out, no objection of uUi-a petUa to the Award could, in any 
event, be maintained. The terms of the convention preclude it, and so the consider- 

1 Appendix B, p. 31. 



10 

tion of the question under examination is not necessary for the purpose of establish- 
ing the validity of the Award. Tiiat :s unassailable. 

But if any part of the line fixed by President Loubet did, in fact, lie outside the 
limits fixed by the convention of 1886, that part would require modification and it 
would be necessary for the present Arbitrator to substitute for it such line as he 
should determine to be " most in accordance with " what he should find to be the 
" true intention " of the Award. 

Since an examination of the provisions of the convention of 1886 shows that the 
line fixed by President Loubet did not and could not, having the termini which he 
determined for it, lie, in any part, without the territory in which he was authorized 
to draw it, it only remains to ascertain and define with greater particularity the line 
which he described. 

We come, then, to the second question above stated and are to consider whether 
the part of the line fixed by President Loubet which lies between Cerro Pando and 
the Atlantic can be identified, in more detail, so as to be as " clear and indisputable " 
as the parties have agreed that that portion is which lies between Cerro Pando and 
the Pacific. 

The Award declares that this line 

" shall be formed by the counterfort of the cordillera which starts from 
Cape Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the 
Eio Tarire or Rio Sixola, then by the chain of divisions of water between 
the Atlantic and the Pacific to 9 degrees, about, of latitude. * * * " 

It is difficult to see any obscurity or uncertainty in this description. A latent 
ambiguity, owing to a lack of correspondence between the description and the con- 
figuration of the country, is always possible in any description, but, given the 
existence of the natural features mentioned, there is no lack of definiteness or clear- 
ness in this description of the line. 

It is made plain that the point at which the line begins on the Atlantic is Punta 
Mona, just as the point at which it ends on the Pacific is Punta Burica. It is made 
plain that from that point it follows the summit of the counterfort or spur of tlie 
cordillera, one end of which is at Punta Mona, until it reaches the cordillera, and 
that it then follows the crest of the water-shed formed by the cordillera to a point 
near the ninth degree of north latitude. 

If we compare the description of this part of the line with that which the parties 



11 

have declared "cleai* and indisputable ", we shall find equal clearness in both. This 
" clear and indisputable " part of the line, as fixed, is to " follow the line of division 
of watei's between the Cbiriqui Viejo and the afiluents of Gulf Dulce, to end at Point 
Burica on the Pacific Ocean." The description of the part of the line now under con- 
sideration is no less clear. 

There is, then, nothing in the description, as it is written, to give rise to any 
difiiculty. Throughout its course, the line follows, according to modern practice in 
boundaries, the lines of watersheds. From Punta Mona to the Cordillera, it follows 
the line which divides the waters flowing into the Tarire or Sixola from those flowing 
into the next river to the north ; from the junction of this line with the cordillera, it 
follows the line which divides the waters flowing into the Atlantic from those flowing 
into the Pacific, until it reaches " 9 degrees, about, of latitude ", and thence it follows 
" the line of division of waters between the Cbiriqui Viejo and the affluents of 
Gulf Dulce ", ending at Punta Burica. There is no uncertainty, no lack of clearness 
in any part of the description. 

It is to be noted here that the description of the line in the award has been, in 
efi"ect, ofiicially accepted by Costa Rica as clear and satisfactory. 

In the official letter of Senor de Peralta, Costa Rican Minister at Paris to M. 
Delcasse, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, mentioned in Article I. of the present 
Convention and to which we have already referred, there is a detailed description of a 
boundary line, diflfering widely, in important points, from that of the Award, but which 
adopts the language of President Loubet as to " the counterfort of the cordillera which 
starts from Cape Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of 
the Eio Sixola." 

The new description purported to be an " interpretation " of the Award and to. be 
written in order " to avoid all possible confusion with respect to the intentions " of 
the Arbitrator, and while it is obvious that it is not an interpretation of, but a 
proposed substitute for the line described in the Award, it is certain that no language 
was used in it which was not considered by Costa Rica to be clear, definite and free 
from ambiguity or other difiSculty. 

Now this description, proposed by Costa Rica, begins as follows : 

" The boundary between the Republic of Costa Rica and Colombia shall 
be formed by the counterfort of the cordillera which runs from Cape Mona 
on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the Rio Tarire 
or Sixola."! 

' Appendix F, p. 38. 



12 

We need not consider, here, the departure, in a subsequent part of this descrip- 
tion, from the line iixed by the Award. What is important now is that Costa Rica, in 
endeavoring to make a description which should be perfectly clear and " avoid all 
possible confusion," found the language of the Award itself most apt for that 
purpose. The Award, then, in describing a line " formed by the counterfort 
of the Cordillera which starts from Cape Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on 
the north the valley of the Rio Tarire or Rio Sixola, employed language which, to 
Costa Rica, was perfectly clear and definite. 

That is tbe present contention of Panama, as it was always that of Colombia. 
That was the view of Costa Rica at the time when the Award was made. It would be 
singular if she were now to be permitted to take a different attitude and to say that 
she herself, in formulating a description of the line which should be free from all 
doubt or uncertainty, had used language which is uncertain, misleading or cannot be 
applied. 

Costa Rica was then, as she is now and has been ever since, in physical posses- 
sion of the territory through which the line runs. She knew the characteristics of 
the country and was in a position to describe its features, and to select language which 
should define the line, with perfect clearness and certainty. Unless a deliberate 
purpose to use language which should give rise to difficulty and confusion were to be 
attributed to her (and such an imputation would be wholly inadmissible), it must be 
assumed that the description proposed by her was, at any rate, clear and certain. 

It is thus, we submit, demonstrated that the language of the Award is clear and 
free from doubt, by the agreement of all parties. There is left only the question of 
its application to the situs. 

If the line, as described, fits the physical configiiration of the country, there 
remains only to describe it in more detail to settle the controversy. 

IV. The Commission of Engineers. 

Since M. Delcasse declined to go into a closer description of the line, for lack of 
data, and considered it, for that reason, inadvisable to attempt to lay it out on the 
map, it was obvious that, in view of Costa Rica's attitude, further and more detailed 
information as to the physical characteristics of tbe territory through which the line 
runs, was required. 

Had there been a Commission o£ Delimination appointed, as contemplated by the 
Award, this information would have been developed in the course of its work, and it is 



13 

at least conceivable that no real difficulty -would have been found in laying out the 
line fixed by the Award. Indeed, in view of the report of the Commission of Engin- 
eers appointed by the present Arbitrator, we may say that it is clear that there would 
hav.e been no such difficulty. 

But Costa Kica declined to join in the appointment of a Commission of Delimi- 
nation, and the present arbitration became necessary. Since the sole purpose of this 
arbitration is to construe and apply the Award of President Loubet, since it was occa- 
sioned by the inability of the parties to agree as to what line is fixed hj that Award, 
and since it appears, by M. Delcasse's letter, that a lack of sufficient data pre- 
vented a description in the Award in any but general terms and made it 
inadvisable to attempt to trace it on the map, the necessity of a survey was obvious. 
Without such information as a survey alone would furnish, the present Arbitrator 
would find himself in the same embarrassment as was President Loubet, in defining 
the line with precision. 

In order, therefore, that this arbitration might certainly and finally remove all 
such difficulties, it was necessary that the present Arbitrator should be furnished 
with such full and complete data as would make it possible for him to go further than 
President Loubet had done in the detailed definition of the line. The convention, 
accordingly, provided, in Article II, for a survey by a commission of engineers, one to 
be appointed by the President of Panama, one by the President of Costa Pica, and 
two by the Arbitrator ; all to be competent and impartial persons, not citizens of 
either of the countries interested. Such a commission was to be appointed at request 
of either party or by the Arbitrator, sua sponte ; it was to conduct the survey as the 
Arbitrator should direct, and to report, with maps of and data concerning the region 
surveyed. 

Panama, being desirous that everything should be furnished which might be 
necessary to a final and complete settlement of the question, requested the appoint- 
ment of the Commission, immediately upon the ratification of the convention. 

The Commission were appointed, made their survey of the whole territory iu 
question, and have made their report to the Arbitrator, with full and detailed maps. 
With the report is included the report of the geologist of the Commission, and there 
are also presented supplementary reports, one by Mr. Hodgdon, the member of the 
Commission appointed by Panama, and one by Mr. Ashmead, the member appointed 
by Costa Rica. These supplementary reports contain matters which the other 
members of the Commission did not desire to put in their report, and that of Mr. 



14 

Ashmead contains some expressions of dissent from the report of tbe geologist and 
from some conclusions of Mr. Hodgdon. Both Mr. Hodgdon and Mr. Ashmead 
answer certain questions propounded for Panama and Costa Rica, to which the other 
Commissioners were not willing to make answers of any sort. 

The Commission, with their report, also submitted a series of maps of the whole 
region under consideration which, with the report itself, will, we believe, furnish the 
Arbitrator all the data necessary to a decision of the question before him. 

V. The Puepose and Results of the Sdkvey. 

By the Award of President Loubet, the boundary is to be formed 

" by the counterfort of tbe cordillei'a which starts from Cape Moua on the 
Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the Rio Tarire or Rio 
Sixola, then by the chain of division of waters between the Atlantic and the 
Pacific to 9 degrees, about, of latitude ; it will follow then the line of divi- 
sion of waters between the Chiriqui Viejo and the afHuents of Gulf Dulce, to 
end at Point Burica on the Pacific Ocean." * 

In accordance with the usiial practice, at the present day, this boundary follows 
the summit of successive water-sheds. The meaning and purpose of the Award can- 
not be doubtful. It uses the words " counterfort," " chain of division of waters," 
" line of division of waters," but its design is plain. In each case, it follows the sum- 
mit of a water-shed, and this is the only thing material. 

In the region near the Atlantic, the Award states the line as " formed by the 
counterfort of the Cordillera which starts from Cape Mona on the Atlantic and closes 
on the north the valley of the Rio Tai'ire or Rio Sixola." Tbe plain meaning of this 
is that the arbitrator awarded to Colombia (the predecessor in title of Panama) the 
valley and water-shed of tbe river known in its lower course as the Sixola and in its 
upper course as tbe Tarire. 

Next the line follows " the chain of division of waters between tbe Atlantic and 
the Pacific". Again the meaning is clear. Everything on the Atlantic side of the 
summit of this divide was awarded to Colombia; everything on the Pacific side to 
Costa Rica. 

The remainder of the line we need not consider, since the parties have agreed 
that it is clear, but it may be noted that the same principle is there carried out. The 
summit of tbe watei-shed between the Chiriqui Viejo and the affluents of Gulf 

• Appendix D. p. 36. 



15 

Dulce is followed ; all on the side of the Chiriqui Viejo being awarded to Colombia, 
all on the side of Gulf Dulce to Costa Rica. 

We may not unreasonably wonder that any oue who found the latter part of 
the description of the line clear, shoiild have any diiBculty with the rest. If it 
be easy, as it certainly is, to understand a line which follows the division of 
waters between the Chiriqui Viejo and the aiHueuts of Gulf Dulce, what 
difficulty can there be in understanding one which follows the division of 
waters between the Atlantic and Pacific, or which follows the counterfort which closes 
on the north the valley of the Sixola? The slight differences in language between 
" counterfort which closes on the north the valley of the Eio Tarire or Eio Sixola," 
" the chain of division of waters " and " the line of division of waters " is not euough 
to cause any uncertainty. 

It cannot be material whether the divide between the Sixola and the valley of the 
next river to the north be formed by what is technically called a " counterfort of the 
Cordillera " or not. That can be no element in describing the boundary. The mean- 
ing of the Award is plain ; it was intended that the line should follow the northern 
limit of the water-shed of the Tarire or Sixola. In fact, as we shall have occasion to ■ 
point out later, that limit is formed by a " counterfort of the cordillera," but if it were 
not and if President Loubet had been technically in error in so designating the ele- 
vation, there would still be no uncertainty. It is too obvious for argument that he 
meant the line to follow the summit of the elevation, however it might be technically 
called, which bounds on the north the valley of the Sixola or Tarire. 

So with the expression " the chain of division of waters between the Atlantic 
and the Pacific." If the word " chain " were not technically accurate as a designa- 
tion of this divide, the meaning of the Award is no less clear. It is the divide which 
i8 to be followed, and however the elevations forming it are to be technically desig- 
nated, there can' be no question of the meaning of the Award. 

Any other interpretation would be without foundation in reason. To suppose 
that President Loubet, in calling the elevation which closes on the north the valley 
of the Sixola, a " couuterfort," meant that designation to be the controlling 
feature, so that he chose it because he supposed it to be what is technically so called 
and not because, from its relation to the water-shed, it formed a natural line of divis- 
ion ; to suppose that when he fixed another part of the boundary by the " chain of 
division " between the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it was the fact that it 
■was a chain and not the fact that formed a division which controlled him, would be 



16 

to attribute to him an absurdity. That would not be reasonable. It is too 
plain to need argument that the controlling element in the description of both these 
parts of the line is that, for the one part, the elevation, however it might be called, 
closed on the north the valley of the Sisola, and, for the second part, that the eleva- 
tion there mentioned, whether strictly a chain or not, divided the waters of the At- 
lantic slope from those of the Pacific. 

The task of the Commission, therefore, was to ascertain whether there was a 
divide running from Puuta Mona on the Atlantic to the cordillera, which closed on 
the north the valley of the Sixola, and whether tbere was, from the place of junction 
of this divide with the cordillera, a divide running to the point near the ninth par- 
allel of latitude, as to which the parties are agreed (near Cerro Pando), forming a di- 
vision of waters between the Atlantic and the Pacific. If so, the elements for a 
further definition and ultimate demarcation of the line of the Award would be sup- 
plied. If not, then a latent ambiguity would be disclosed which the present Arbi- 
trator would be called upon to solve. 

From the point near the ninth degree of north latitude, near what is called Cerro 
Pando, to the place of intersection of the divide which closes on the north the valley 
of the Sixola, called Chirripo Grande, the line of division between the waters of the 
Atlantic and those of the Pacific was ascertained. As to this, no dispute and no ar- 
gument is possible. The report is precise and there is nothing to countervail it.^ 

The valley of the Sixola is closed on the north by a divide which extends from 
Chirripo Grande to Punta Mona. Just back of Punta Mona it is apparently (but only 
apparently) interrupted by a swamp, sometimes traversable and sometimes not, 
according to the rains and the amount of water which it carries, but nowhere more 
than two and one-half kilometers — about a mile and a half — in width. Across this 
swamp, which (as we shall point out later) is only a " saddle " of the ridge of which 
Punta Mona forms part and which extends from Chirripo Grande to and into the sea, 
differing from the other saddles of this ridge only in elevation, the Commission have 
traced on their maps an arbitrary straight line from Punta Mona to where the divide 
rises again. From that point to Chirripo Grande there is no point of submergence. 
The divide for all that distance is plain, and the line of the summit of the watershed 
can be and has been located and laid down on the Commission's maps.^ 



' Report of Commission, p. 49. 

' Ibid., p. 50. Maps 1 and 3, post (talven from Commission's maps). 



17 

It may be that for this short distance of low saddle covered by swamp the true 
summit of the divide cannot be located. It may be that the present Arbitrator will 
be called upon here to define and trace, in accordance with the " correct interpretation 
and true intention " of President Loubet, the line across these few furlougs of swamp. 
But no such short break iu the continuity of the visible elevation can give rise to any 
doubt concerning, or ambiguity in, the Award, nor in the line from Puuta Mona to 
Chirripo Grande, as a wliole. 

To fix such a line as that across this swamp, under such circumstances, is pre- 
cisely what is to be done upon this arbitration, and it can matter little, if at all, to 
either country, whether the line, as so fixed, awards to one or the other a few acred 
more or less of this submerged land, worthless for any purpose. The solution 
adopted by the Commission appears to us reasonable and suitable, but we submit the 
matter to the Avisdom of the Arbitrator. 

It would appear that President Loubet was not aware of the existence of this 
swamp, and that he supposed the divide, spur or counterfort to be visible to Punta 
Mona itself. That may well have been, for only on maps on a large scale could it be 
indicated. The letter of Mr. Delcasse to Senor de Peralta states that the boundary 
could be fixed, precisely from lack of such details, only in general terms. ^ The 
omission to note and provide for this situation has, thei'efore, no significance, and the 
Award must be given effect, without regard to such a detail, in accordance, as the 
present Convention provides, with its " correct interpretation and true intention ". 

As to what that interpretation and intention are, with respect to the line from 
Punta Mona to Chirripo Grande, there can be no doubt. The intention is so plainly 
expressed that a "correct interpretation " of the Award of itself reveals the " true 
intention." It was the purpose to award to Colombia the entire water- shed of the 
Sixola, from the cordillera, or central chain of mountains, to the sea, by a line which 
should begin at Punta Mona. By the maps which President Loubet had before him, 
it appeared, no doubt, that the ridge, along tiie summit of which the line must run in 
order to attain this result, was visibly continuous from Punta Mona to the cordillera. 
He, therefore, fixed this ridge as the dividing line ; and as a " general indication " (to 
use the expression of M. Delcass^), this was sufficient. 

Had " the spirit of conciliation and good understanding " to which M. Delcasse 
said that the Arbitrator trusted for the physical delimitation of the frontier, pre- 

' Ante, p. 7. 



18 

vailed, no question would ever have arisen. The little, worthless space of submerged 
ground back of Puuta Mona would have caused no difScultj. It was the unwilling- 
ness of Costa Eica to comply with the Award and her evasions of the demands of 
Colombia and of Panama for compliance, which finally brought about this second 
arbitration. 

President Loubet described the line as following " the counterfort of the Cordil- 
lera which starts from Punta Mona and closes on the north of the valley of the Eio 
Sixola or Eio Tarire." As we have said, it is obviously immaterial whether the 
elevation designated is technically to be called a "counterfort" or not. It has, 
at any rate, that appearance and is as apt for the purpose which it serves in the 
Award. It does " close on the north the valley of the Eio Sixola or Eio Tarire," it is 
visibly continuous from the cordillera at Chirripo Grande to a point within a short 
distance of Punta Mona itself, and there is no diiBculty in tracing the boundary along 
its crest. 

There can be not the least uncertainty as to what elevation, ridge or counterfor 
is meant by the Award. The report of the Commission shows that there is but one 
which could possibly be said to " close on the north the valley of the Eio Sixola or Eio 
Tarire," and that is the one which runs to Punta Mona. Confusion or doubt is im- 
possible. If it be a question of the " correct interpretation " of the Award, the eleva- 
tion in question must be taken. If it be a question of the " true intention " of the 
Award the same result must follow. 

It is, we believe, as we have said, immaterial whether the elevation in question is 
technically a counterfort or whether it does, in fact, actually touch Punta Mona, if it 
be such that it can serve all the purposes of a boundary which a counterfort, techni- 
cally so called, can serve and if it approach so near Punta Mona as to give rise to no 
practical difSculty in drawing a line across the intervening space to connect the two. 
These two conditions being satisfied, as the report and maps of the Commission show 
that they are, and the meaning of the Award being perfectly clear, as it is, any discus- 
sion as to whether President Loubet was literally accurate in using the word " coun- 
terfort " aud in saying that it " starts from Punta Mona," becomes impertinent. 
These are mere matters of purely verbal accuracy which, when the meaning and appli- 
cation of the Award have been determined, become irrelevant to the question before the 
present Arbitrator. 

But, if they are to be considered, it will be found that in these immaterial partic- 
ulars also, President Loubet was entirely accurate. No doubt he would have 



19 

considered such details too trivial, as, indeed, thej are, to deserve any great care from 
him ; but at any rate he has attained accuracy as to them also. The leport of the 
geologist of the Commission, which they submitted with their report and which, there- 
fore, has the same authority (except with regard to Commissioner Ashmead, the 
member appointed by Costa Rica, in so far as he has expressed his dissent from it) 
makes this clear. 

The geologist finds tliis divide to be one and uniform, stretching from the Cor- 
dillera to and into the sea, and including Punta Mona. The irregularity in its out- 
line, by which it appears to run frequently parallel with the cordillera, and the many 
" saddles " (which are characteristic of almost all long, continuous elevations) were 
caused by erosion of streams. The crest of the divide was once, in some places, at 
least, north of its present situation, but the present as well as the past form, resulted 
from the dissection, through erosion, of a former plateau or plain reaching from the 
mountains to the sea. The part between Punta Mona and the continuously high 
lands to the west, is merely a saddle, exceptionally low, which has, by reason of its 
slight elevation, become covered with a swamp ; but the same elevation which is 
visible from the cordillera to tliis point, reappears again in Punta Mona, and beyond 
that, in islands beyond, after which it probably continues under the sea, but does not 
again reach a sufficient elevation to become visible.* 

Thus it appears that President Loubet correctly designated the elevation in ques- 
tion as a " counterfort of the cordillera ", and correctly described it as starting from 
Punta Mona. The mere fact that the saddle back of Punta Mona is so low as to be 
covered by a swamp does not affect the real continuity of the counterfort, nor does it 
lose its character because, in consequence of erosion, its superficial appearance, in 
some places, is that of ridges parallel with the cordillera, connected by saddles of a 
different axial direction. 

So far as the Republic of Costa Rica is concerned, it is precluded, as we have 
already pointed out, from raising any question as to whether there is a " counterfort 
of the cordillera which starts from Punta Mona ", for iu the official letter of its 
Minister at Paris to the French Minister of Fox-eign Affairs of September 29, 1900, 
written by direction of his government, and proposing a different description of the 
boundary, he describes this elevation in precisely the same words, as " the counter- 
fort of the cordillera which starts from Cape Mona." ^ 

' Appendix No. 2 to Report of Commission, pp. 17-33, 43, 44 ; Statement of Commissioner 
Hodgdon, pp. 5, 8. 

2 Appendix F, p. 38. 



20 

One other circumstance alone appears to call for attention in connection with the 
counterfort, although its inaportance is so slight as to deserve no extended considera- 
tion. 

From a point near the swamp behind Punta Mona there run out several 
branches of the counterfort, similar, as the maps show, to the various branches 
or sub-spurs which are found all along its course. Between these branches two or 
three small streams rise, to the south of the swamp directly behind Punta 
Mona, such as Gadocan Creek and Middle Creek, which do not flow into 
the Sixola, but directly into the sea.' The ground is very flat, the distance very short, 
and very slight differences in level determine the discharge of these little streams. In 
ancient times, the report of the geologist shows, these streams discharged into the 
Sixola, and even now, in high water, the Sixola and Gadocan Creek mingle.^ When the 
few furlongs of swamp behind Punta Mona, which cover the low saddle of the coun- 
terfort, have been passed, all the streams to the south of the divide flow always into 
the Sixola. 

The subject of these little streams, as we have said, does not deserve extended 
consideration. If the Sixola, close to its mouth, flows through a very flat country 
and if a few small streams have, through this flat country, cut themselves channels 
to the sea, these are circumstances of no moment, and cannot affect the question under 
consideration. The Commission of Engineers says that " broadly speaking, the 
small areas drained by these streams would in general be understood as included 
when speaking of the valley of the Sixola." ^ Commissioner Ashmead objects to this 
statement, but the rest of the Commission adopt it. 

It is to be noted that the phrase of the Award, " which closes on the north the 
valley of the Sixola," is merely descrij)tive. There is no doubt whatever that the 
counterfort shown on the maps which starts from Punta Mona, and the other extremity 
of which is at Chirripo Grande, does close on the north the valley of the Sixola, that 
no other counterfort or elevation does so and that this is the one specified by the 
award. The little space which has just been mentioned is negligible ; but if it 
were of more importance, it would still be true that the counterfort in question is the 
one intended, because it substantially, if not literally, answers the description of the 



^ Report of Commission, p. 50. Map No. 3, post (talcen from Commission's map). 
^ Ibid., p. 5G. 
= Ibid., p. 5t. 



21 

Award. " General indications " are all that President Loubet undertook to give, and 
this designation, if not minutely accurate, is too plain to leave any room for doubt 
or confusion. It is, at any rate, sufficiently accurate to make the boundary 
entirely plain. Any objection based upon the existence of the swamp or of Gadocan 
or Middle Creek, would be in the highest degree technical. We do not believe that 
any such objection could have any force or be of any weight, but from such arguments 
upon tliese points, Costa Rica has cut herself off by her previous contention. 

For the description of the boundary proposed in the letter of Reflor de Peralta to 
M. Deleasse begins with " the counterfort of the cordillera which starts from Cape 
Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the E.io Tarire or 
Sixola near the mouth of that river." ' That is precisely the territory under considera- 
tion, and it is not now open to Costa Eica to say that the description of the line, in 
that part, proposed by herself is insensible or uncertain. 

Upon the boundary proposed by Costa Rica in Senor de Peralta's letter of Sep- 
tember 29th, 1900, it seems hardly necessary to comment further. While expressed 
as an "interpretation " of the Award, it is, in fact, a wholly dififerent line, the purpose 
of which appears to be to secure to Costa Rica the upper valley of the Gixola, in spite 
of the Award, which assigned it to Colombia. 

The exact line intended by the description given by Costa Rica is not clear. It 
begins with the " counterfort of the Cordillera which runs from Cape Mona on the 
Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the river Tarire or Sixola," thus, 
as we have already noted, admitting that there is such a counterfort and that this 
description of it, the same which is used in the Award, is sufficiently clear to avoid all 
confusion or doubt. 

But the nest course, " thence in a west-southwesterly direction along the left bank 
of this river," is not clear. At what point it leaves the counterfort is not specified. 
At any rate the line proposed crosses the Sixola at the confluence of the Yorquin and 
continues on the divide between the Yorquin and the Uren to the cordillera, - from 
which point it is described in the language of the Award. 

It is plain, of course, that this line, while called by Senor de Peralta an " inter- 
pretation " of the Award is very far from being that. The line of the Award never 
leaves " the counterfort of the cordillera which starts from Punta Mona " until it 
has reached the cordillera. Its next course is along the cordillera itself. It never 



" Appendix F, p. 39. 
» Ibid. 



22 

crosses the Sixola or Tarire ; it never runs along the left bank of the Sixola ; it never 
mentions the Uren nor the Yorquin nor docs it anywhere follow the divide between 
those rivers. > 

The map shows plainly that the Yorquin and the Uren enter the Sixola or Tarire 
from the south. Obviously, to follow the divide between the Yorquin and the Uren, 
to follow the left bank of the Sixola or to cross the latter river, would require a de- 
parture from the counterfort " which closes on the north the valley of the Sixola." 
These things, therefore, are in direct conflict with the Award, which makes the whole 
counterfort, as far as the cordillera, the line. 

The letter of Senor de Peralta was an attempt, hardly disguised, on the part of 
Costa Rica, to induce President Loubet to revise his Award and to substitute a 
difl'erent line for that which he had fixed. Indeed Senor de Peralta endeavors, in his 
letter, to justify it by saying that the line which his Government proposes makes 
])early " a right line from Puuta Mona to Punta Burica, which is, so to say, the fun- 
damental idea of the Arbitrator." ^ 

There is not the slightest reason for attributing any such purpose to the Arbi- 
trator. On the contrary the line fixed by him is so far from being a straight or right 
line, that it cannot be supposed that he ever had any such idea. But the attempt to 
justify the line proposed by Costa Ilica by such a consideration, and the fact, which 
the maps make apparent, that the line fixed by the Award is so far from a right line as 
to have been drawn, evidently, with no regard to such an idea, make it evident that 
the Costa Rican proposition was no interpretation, but onlj^ an eifort to induce the 
Arbitrator to change his Award after he made it. The maps again show the reason 
for the effort in the fact that the change would give to Costa Rica the whole upper 
valley of tiie Sixola, which the Award did not give to her, but to Colombia. 

Senor de Peralta requested of M. Delcass6, in the name of his government, a 
confirmation of the line described in his letter, which M. Delcasse politely, but with 
entire distinctness, declined to give.^ The line then proposed by Costa Rica was thus 
denied any sanction by the Arbitrator. This disposed of the matter, and it might 
have been allowed to rest there, as a closed incident which has no longer any 
importance. 

But the letter of Senor de Peralta has a value, in this arbitration, to which we 



* Appendix D, p. 36. 
» Appendix F, p. 39. 
» Ante, p. 7. 



23 

have already alluded. From the fact that Costa Kica employed the same language 
as the Arbitrator in describing the " counterfort of the cordillera which runs fi-om 
Cape Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and closes on the north the valley of the Rio 
Tarire or Sixola ", and in describing the line along the cordillera, it is made plain 
that there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the line described in the Award, that 
Costa Rica had no real doubt about that line, and that her only objection was, not 
that the line was not plain, but that it was not acceptable. She was in no doubt as 
to what line President Loubet had fixed— if she had been she would not herself have 
adopted the same language — but she was unwilling to accept the Award because she 
was dissatisfied with its terms. 

When the Award is read in the light of these circumstances and of the report sub- 
mitted and maps furnished by the Commission of Engineers, no difficulty can be 
found in tracing the line which it describes with perfect clearness and certainty. 

We put aside, for this puipose, the question of the technical designation of the 
elevation which forms the northern boundary of the valley of the Sixola. While the 
report of the geologist of the Commission and the supplementary report of Commis- 
sioner Hodgdon make it, we believe, entirely clear that "counterfort of the cordillera" 
is, from any point of view, a proper designation of this elevation, ^ we still are of 
opinion that this is a wholly immaterial and unimportant matter. The geological 
formation of the ridge in question ; its geological or physiographical relation to the 
cordillera or Punta Mona ; whether it was, originally, an organic whole or was made 
up of originally isolated elevations, the spaces between which have been filled up by 
detritus, alluvion or in any other way ; whether at any former time streams flowed 
through the present " saddles " of the divide ; whether, at some earlier period, the 
divide lay further north or further south ; whether the swamp behind Punta Mona 
covers a true " saddle " ; all these things are, we conceive, utterly immaterial to the 
purpose of this arbitration. 

The question before President Loubet was the fixing of a boundary. For that 
purpose the only thing of importance was that there should be natural features of the 
country to define it, if such could be found. Intending to awai'd to Colombia every- 
thing south of the north boundary of the water-shed of the Sixola and east of the 
cordillera, the natiiral boundary was the divide to the north of the Sixola and that 
formed by the crest of the cordillera. This boundary, accordingly, he fixed, and the 
Commission, in constantly calling those elevations " divides ", have exactlj^ expressed 

• Supplemental Statement of Commissioner Hodgdon, p. 5. 



24 

his meaninp;. He called the divide from Punta Mona to Chirripo Grande a " counter- 
fort of the Cordillera", that from Chirripo Grande to Cerro Pando a " chain of division 
of waters ", and that from Cerro Pando to Punta Burica a '■ division of waters ", but 
the differences between these descriptions are merely matters of style and language. 
The purpose and meaning are identical in the three cases. 

It is not conceivable that, had President Loubet known (if such were the fact) 
that the divide between Punta Mona and Chirripo Grande was not, technically a 
" counterfort ", or that the divide between Chirripo Grande and Cerro Pando was 
not, technically, a " chain ", he would have placed the boundary elsewhere. These 
things have no bearing upon the utility or convenience of making the divides, bound- 
aries. Only the fact that they are divides matters for that purpose. It would be 
doing little honor to the intelligence of the distinguished arbitrator to suppose that 
he would have been affected by such matters as technical names or geological for- 
mations, on a subject to which they are so irrelevant. 

Nor do these matters lead to any uncertainty or doubt as to the meaning of the 
award. Even were it true that no elevation properly to be called a " counterfort " ex- 
tends from Punta Mona to the cordillera, there is a ridge which, however it was 
formed, is now continuous, which does extend from a point directly behind Punta 
Mona and only 1| kilometers from it, which, "closes on the north the valley 
of the Sixola ", and there is nothing else which answers that description in 
any way. It is also true that from the point where this ridge joins 
the cordillera there is a continuous elevation to Cerro Pando which 
divides " the waters between the Atlantic and the Pacific." These things the report 
and maps of the Commission of Engineers have established. ' 

What room is left for doubt, or even for argument ? How could the meaning and 
application of the Award be made clearer ? Without the survey and detailed maps, 
indeed, it might not be possible to determine whether the line laid down by President 
Loubet could, in fact, be drawn, but with them no suuh question is possible. 

There are suggestions in the questions asked for Costa Bica* of a geographical 
situation different fi"om that which the award contemplates. 

We may wonder, now, that such questions were propounded, since they are in so 
many respects totally and obviously at variance with the real situation, which it would 
seem that whoever framed them for Costa Rica should have known. 



' Report of Commission, pp. 49-50. 

* Commissioner Hodgdon's Statement, pp. 9 13. 



25 

For example Question 6 asks whether Puiita Mona is separated 
from the rest of the delta of the Sixola " by a barrier of impassable swamps 
inauy miles in width." All the Commission agree and the maps show that the swamp 
back of Punta Mona is but from 1.5 to 2.5 kilometers in width ^ and that it was 
forded daring 1912. Commissioner Hodgdon states (and there is no statement to the 
contrary) that there are trails across this swamp passable at nearly all, if not all, 
seasons. Since these things are so patent on a mere examination, the reason for 
asking the question is not apparent. 

Now that the survey and report have demonstrated the real facts as to the entire 
geographic situation, and have shown that it agrees with that contemplated by the 
Award and differs in every essential respect from that contemplated in the questions 
submitted for Costa Rica, we can only conclude that the latter wore framed iiuder an 
entire misapprehension as to the real facts. That misapprehension having been thus 
corrected we must suppose that any objections based upon it will not be urged. 
Should they be, the maps and report are sufficient to dispose of them. 

These questions submitted by Costa Kica must, we assume, be intended to elicit 
information which will support whatever conteutious she intends to make in op- 
position to the application of the Award as it is written. They lead us, therefore, to 
make the following observations upon the position which they disclose. 

Questions 2, 4 and 6, may have some tendency to elicit information to show, if 
such were the fact, that there is no elevation starting at Puuta Mona which closes to 
the north the valley of the Sixola. That is, no doubt, a proper subject of inquiry, 
but the report and the maps, as we have said, show that the actual situation is con- 
sistent, and not inconsistent, with the Award and that the situation suggested by the 
form of these questions does not exist. 

Question 1 appears to us immaterial, but otherwise unobjectionable. Commis- 
sioners Ashmead and Hodgdon do not differ in their answers to this, as to the fact. 

Questions 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, relate to geological matters, with the purpose of 
showing that the geological structure of Punta Mona, of the divide and of the Cor- 
dillera, is such that the two former cannot be considered parts of one organic 
whole and cannot form, properly speaking, a counterfort of the cordillera. Apart 
from the fact that the geologist's report does not support but refutes this 



' Report of Commission, p. 57 ; Commissioaer Ashmead's Statement, p. 30 ; Commissioner 
Hodgdou's Statement, pp. 9-13. 



26 

contention, the whole subject is, as we have said, in our view, irrelevant. A 
divide is not made a more suitable boundary because of its geological relation 
to the mountain or mountain chain where it heads, nor because it is, technically, a 
counterfort. That it is a continuous divide is the only feature which has a bearing 
upon its fitness for this purpose. That being ascertained, questions of its relation 
geologically or in any other way to the other features of the country are irrelevant, 
and a mistake (if mistake there were) in calling it a counterfort or spur or anything 
else, so long as it is sufficiently identified, would be immaterial. 

Therefore, so far as any objection to the application of the Award, according to 
its literal language, is disclosed by these questions, it is either answered by the 
report of the Commission, and their maps, or is of no validity. 

We confess our inability to discern any other objection. With the maps and the 
Award before us, the Award seems perfectly clear and perfectly in accord with the 
features of the country. A line must, no doubt, be defined across the 1^ to 2^ kilo- 
meters — not quite a mile to a mile and a half- — across the low saddle between 
Punta Mona and the point where the divide becomes again visible, to continue 
so to the Cordillera at Chirripo Grande. Beyond that point, the crest of 
the divide forms a sufficient definition of the boundary to the cordillera at Chirripo 
Grande ; and thence to Cerro Pando the crest of the divide again is a clear 
description. 

The only actual difficulty arising in the application of the Award (and this would 
have been none had there been a real desire on both sides to carry it out) comes from 
the fact that for the little distance mentioned, behind Punta Mona, the counterfort 
sinks so low that its actual crest is not visible nor easily to be ascertained. All the 
rest of the line is clear and plain, and has now been definitely located by the Com- 
mission of Engineers. It remains onlj' to declare that location in order to fix the 
" correct interpretation and true intention " of the award. 

The re2:)ort and maps of the Commission of Engineers furnish all the elements 
necessary for such location and show, we submit, that the answer to the question 
raised by the present arbitration is as follows : 

The boundary between Panama and Costa Eica under and most in ac- 
cordance with the correct interpretation and true intention of the Award of 
the President of the French Piepublic made the 11th of September, 1900, 
begins at the extremity of Point Mona on the Atlantic Ocean and runs 
thence in a generally northwesterly direction along the crest of said Point 



27 

Mona to the swamp in the rear of said Point at the place where the upland 
makes furthest into the swamp ; thence in a straight line in a south-westerly 
direction across said swamp ; thence to and along the crest of the divide 
which bounds on the north and west the drainage area of Middle Creek to 
the point where the crest of said divide joins the crest of the divide which 
bounds on the north the area drained by the River Sixaola and its tribu- 
taries ; thence along the crest of said last mentioned divide to the central 
Cordillera at or near a poimt known as Chirripo Grande ; thence along the 
crest of the divide between the waters which flow into the Atlantic and 
those which flow into the Pacific to a point near the ninth parallel of north 
latitude ; thence along the line of division of waters between the Chiriqui 
Viejo and the affluents of Golfo Dulce to end at Point Burica on the Pa- 
cific Ocean. 

EusEBio A. Morales, 
Minister of the Republic of Panama to the 
United States and Special Representative 
of the Republic upon the Arbitration. 
William Nelson Cromwell, 
Edward Bruce Hill, 
Counsel of the Republic of Panama. 



28 



Appendix A. 

(Translated from the Spanish) 

CONVENTION OF AKBITRATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF 
COLOMBIA AND THE KEPUBLIC OF COSTA EICA, SIGNED AT SAN 
JOSE DECEMBER 25, 1880. 

The Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of the United States of Colombia, 
equally animated by the sincere desire to maintain and cement their friendly rela- 
tions ; conTinced that in order to attain this benefit so vital to their prosperity and 
good name, it is necessary to close the only source of differences that may arise 
between them, which is no other than the question of boundaries foreseen in articles 
VII and VIII of the Convention of March 15, 1825, between Central America and 
Colombia, and which has subsequently been the subject of diverse treaties between 
Costa Rica and Colombia none of which has ever been ratified ; and both nations 
understanding that such a precedent counsels the adoption at the present 
time of another more expeditious, prompt and surer means of set- 
tling said question of boundaries, by designating forever a clear 
and indisputable dividing line along the whole extent where their 
territories adjoin ; therefore, *the President of the Republic of Costa Rica in the 
exercise of the authority with which he is invested has conferred full powers on His 
Excellency Doctor Don Jose Maria Castro, Secretary of State and of the Office of 
Foreigu Relations ; and the President of the United States of Colombia, thereunto 
specially and sufficiently authorized by the Legislative Bodies of that Nation, on the 
Honorable Doctor Don Jose Maria Quijauo Otero, Charge de'Affaires before this 
Government ; who, after having communicated their respective Full Powers and 
found them to be iu good and due form, have agreed on the following Articles : 

Article I. 

The Republic of Costa Rica and the United States of Colombia agree to submit 
to arbitration, the question of boundaries existing between them, and the fixing of a 
line which shall divide permanently and clearly, the territory of the first from that of 
the second, each remaining in full, quiet and peaceful possession, so far as they are 



29 

concerned between themselves, of all the land that said line shall leave on their 
respective sides, which land shall not be subject to any special charge or incumbrance 
in favor of the other. 

Aeticle II. 

The Arbitrator, who, condescending to act as such, shall have to put into execu- 
tion the stipulation of the preceding Article, shall, in order for it to be valid, carry it 
out, within ten months, counting from the date of his acceptance, even though one of 
the parties does not appear and support its rights through a representati^ o or 
attorney. 

Article III. 

In order that the High Contracting Parties may be duly notified of the accept- 
ance of the Arbitrator, and that they cannot plead ignorance thereof, it shall suffice 
that it be published in an official periodical of the Nation of the Arbitrator, or in that 
of either of the High Contracting Parties. 

Article IV. 

The Arbitrator having heard orally or in writing the parties or party who may 
appear, and having considered the documents that may be introduced in evidence, or the 
arguments that may be made, shall render his award without further formality, and that 
award, whatever it may be, shall thenceforth be regarded as a concluded, perfect, binding 
and irrevocable treaty between the High Contracting Parties, who waive formally and 
expressly every appeal of whatsoever nature against the arbital decision, and they 
bind themselves promptly, faithfully and foiever to observe and fulfil it, pledging 
thereto their national honor. 

Article V. 

In consonance with the foregoing articles and in order to fulfil them, the High 
Contracting Parties appoint as Arbitrator, his Majesty, the King of the Belgians ; in 
the unexpected event of his declining to accept, then. His Majesty, the King of Spain; 
and in the equally unexpected event that the latter should also decline, then His Ex- 
cellency, the President of the Argentine Republic ; in all of whom, without any dis- 
tinction, the High Contracting Parties have the most unbounded confidence. 



30 



Article VI. 

The one of the High Arbitrators named, who shall in fact act in the arbitration, 
may delegate his functions, provided he does not cease to directly intervene in ren- 
dering the final judgment. 

Article VII. 

If, unfortunately, none of the High Arbitrators named can do the High Con- 
tracting Parties the eminent service of accepting the preferred position, the latter, in 
common accord, shall make new appointments, and so on successively, until some one 
of them shall take effect, because it is agreed, and it is here formally stipulated, that 
the question of boundaries and the fixing of a dividing line between the adjacent 
territories of Costa Kica and Colombia, shall never be decided by other means, than 
the civilized and humanitarian one of arbitration, the statu quo, already agreed to, 
being preserved meanwhile. 

Article VIII. 

The present Convention shall be submitted to the approval of the National Grand 
Council in the Republic of Costa Rica, and of the Legislative Bodies in that of 
Colombia ; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Panama within the 
shortest possible time. 

In faith whereof, the Plenipotentiaries above mentioned sign and affix their re- 
spective seals on two originals of this Convention. 

Done in the City of San Jose, capital of the Republic of Costa Rica, on the 
twenty -fifth of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty. 

(l. s.) Jose Maria Castro. (l. s.) Jose Maria Qoijano Otero. 



31 



Appendix B. 

(Tranglation from the Spanish) 

CONVENTION ADDITIONAL TO THAT OF DECEMBEK 25, 1880, BETWEEN 
THE UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA AND THE EEPUBLIC OF 
COSTA RICA, SIGNED AT PAEIS JANUARY 20, 1836. 

The undersigned, that is to say : 

Leon Fernandez, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the 
Republic of Costa Rica in Spain, France and Great Britain ; and Carlos Holgnin, 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of Colombia 
in Spain, desirous of removing the difficulties that may arise with regard to execution 
of the Convention of Arbitration concluded between their respective Governments on 
December 25, 1880 ; and 

CONSIDEEING : 

1st. That His Majesty the King of Spain, Don Alfonso XII, has been pleased to 
verbally accept his selection as Arbitrator which the undersigned proposed to him in 
the name of their respective Governments, to settle the territorial disputes pending 
between the two Republics, and that therefore, the Convention of Arbitration of 
December 25, 1880, has already begun to be executed before the Spanish Government ; 

2nd. That it is to the interest of both Republics to continue there the proposed 
arbitral suit, not only because in the archives of Spain there are to be found the 
■greater portion of the original documents which will be of service in having the judg- 
ment rendered with certainty and full knowledge of the case in the pending boundary 
question ; but also because there is a sufficient number of persons there, who have 
specially devoted themselves to studies on America, whose opinion and advice will 
efficaciously contribute to making the judgment conform as neai'ly to truth and justice 
as may be ; and 

3rd. That the very sad and premature death of His Majesty Don Alfonso XII 
might give rise to a doubt regarding the competency of his successor to continue to 
exercise jurisdiction over said arbitral suit until final judgment ; have agreed to exe- 
cute the following convention ad referendum additional to that signed at San Jose on 
December 25, 1880, by the Plenipotentiaries of Costa Rica and of the United States 



32 

of Colombia, for the adjustment of the bouudarj question pending between the two 
Eepublics : 

Aeticle I. 

The Republic of Costa Bica aud the United States of Colombia recognize and de- 
clare that, notwithstanding the death of His Majesty Don Alfonse XII, the Govern- 
ment of Spain is competent to continue exercising jurisdiction over the arbitration 
proposed by the two Republics, and to render an irrevocable and final award in the 
controversy pending concerning the territorial boundaries between the High Contract- 
ing Parties. 

Article II. 

The territorial limit which the Republic of Costa Eiea claims, on the Atlantic 
side, reaches as far as the Island Escudo de Veraguas, and the River Chiriqui (Calo- 
bebora) inclusive ; and on the Pacific side, as far as the River Chiriqui Viejo, inclu- 
sive, to the East of Point Burica. 

The territorial limit which the United States of Colombia claim reaches, on the 
Atlantic side, as far as Cape Gracias a Dios, inclusive ; and on the Pacific side, as far 
as the mouth of the River Golfito and in Gulf Dulce. 

Aeticle III. 

The arbitral award shall confine itself to the disputed territory that lies within 
the extreme limits already described, and cannot affect in any manner any rights that 
a third party, who has not taken part in the arbitration, may set up to the ownership 
of the territory comprised within the limits indicated. 

Article IV. 

If for any cause, the arbitrator cannot render his award within the vital term 
which Articles II. of the Convention of Arbitration of December 25, 1880, allots him, 
the High Contracting Parties agree to extend said term for another ten months, which 
shall be counted from the date on which the first was to have expired. 



33 



Article V. 

Except for the foregoing additions and modifications the Convention of Arbitra- 
tion of December 25, 1880, shall remain in force in all its parts. 

In faith whereof, we sign two of the same tenor authenticated by our respective 
seals, in the City of Paris on January twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and 
eighty-six. 

(l. 8.) Leon Fernandez. . (l. s.) Carlos Holguin. 



Appendix C. 

(Translation from the Spanish.) 

CONVENTION CONFIKMING THE CONVENTIONS OF ARBITKATION OF 

1880 AND 1886, SIGNED AT BOGOTA, NOVEMBER 4, 1896. 

The Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, desiring to put an 
end to the question of boundaries between them, and to reach a definite ten-itorial 
delineation, have agreed to carry out, with the additions and modifications hereinafter 
set forth, the Conventions of Arbitration which they concluded at San Jose, December 
25, 1880, through their Plenipotentiaries, Doctor Don Jose Maria Quijano Otero and 
Doctor Don Jose Maria Castro, and in Paris on January 20, 1886, through their 
Plenipotentiaries Doctor Don Carlos Holguin, and Licenciado Don Leon Fernandez, 
and in order to attain this end, have accredited as Plenipotentiaries, the Government 
of Costa Rica, Don Ascension Esquivel, its Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary ia Colombia, and the Government of Colombia, Senor General Don Jorge 
Holguin, Minister of Foreigu Relations, who, after having exhibited their Full Powers 
and found them in due form, have agreed on the following Articles : 

Article I. 

The Conventions of Arbitration that have been referred to are declared to be 
reaffirmed, which shall be observed and executed with the modifications that are set 
forth in the following Articles. 



34 



Article II. 



The Hif^h Contracting Parties sliall appoint as Arbitrator His Excellency, the 
President of the French Kepublic ; in the nnexpected event that he should not be 
pleased to accept, His Excellency, the President of the United Mexican States ; and 
in equally unexpected event that he should also decline the task. His Excellency, the 
President of the Swiss Confederation ; in all of whom the High Contracting Parties, 
without any distinction, have the most unbounded confidence. 

The High Contracting Parties make it known that, if upon reaffirming the 
Conventions of Arbitration, they have not designated as Arbitrator the Gov- 
ernment of Spain, which had previously accepted this task, it has 
been due to the difficulty that Colombia experiences in demanding of 
said Government so many successive services, having recently signed with Ecuador 
and Peru a treaty concerning boundaries, in which His Catholic Majesty is appointed 
Arbitrator, after the laborious suit concerning the Colombia Venezuelan frontier. 

Article III. 

The acceptance of the first Arbitrator shall be solicited within three months after 
the exchange of ratifications of the present Conventions, and if, on account of the 
refusal of any of the Arbitrators, resort should be had to the next in order, the 
request for him to accept shall be made within three months after notice to the 
Parties of such refusal. 

If, said three months having expired, either of the Parties should not have 
appeared to request the acceptance, the one that may be present is authorized to 
request it, and the acceptance shall be valid just as if both parties had requested it. 

Article IV. 

The arbitration shall be conducted in conformity with the following rules : 
Within the term of Eighteen months after the High Contracting Parties shall 

have been notified of the acceptance of the Arbitrator, they shall present to him their 

arguments and evidence. 

In order that the Parties may be considered to have been duly notified of his 

acceptance, so that they cannot allege ignorance thereof, it shall suSice that it be 

published in the official periodical of the Nation of the Arbitrator. 



35 

The Arbitrator shall communicate to the Representative of each Government the 
arguments of the opposing party, within three months after their presentation, he may 
answer them within the following six months. 

The Arbitrator, in order that it shall be valid, must render his award within the 
term of one year counting from the date on which the term granted for answering 
arguments expires whether the latter have been presented or not. 

The Arbitrator may delegate his functions provided he does not cease directly to 
take part in rendering the final judgment. 

The award of the Arbitrator, no matter what may be, shall be considered as a 
perfect and binding treaty as between the High Contracting Parties, and shall not 
admit of any appeal. Both Parties bind themselves to its faithful fulfillment, and 
they waive any appeal against the decision pledging thereto their national honor. 

Article V. 

Articles II and IV of the present Convention take the place of Article II to VI 
inclusive of the Convention of December 25, 1880 ; and Articles I and IV of that of 
January 20, 1886. Except for the modifications and additions set forth, which must 
be fulfilled, the Conventions of Arbitration aforesaid, stand realErmed and in force in 
all their parts. 

Article VI. 

The present Convention shall be submitted to the approval of the Congress of 
Colombia at its present session, and of the Congress of Costa Rica at its next session, 
and its ratifications shall be exchanged at Panama, San Jose de Costa Rica or 
Washington in the shortest possible time. 

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries above designated sign and seal the present 
Convention at Bogota, November the fourth, one thousand eight hundred and ninety- 
six. 

(l. s.) Ascension Esquivel. (l. s.) Jorge Holdguin. 



36 

Appendix D. 

AWAED OF PRESIDENT LOUBET OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 1900. 
(Translated from the French) 

We, President of the French Republic, Arbitrator, by virtue of a treaty signed, 
November 4, 1896, at Bogota, by the Republics of Columbia and Costa Rica, an in- 
strument which has conferred on us full power to pass upon, according to the prin- 
ciples of law and historic precedents, the boundary to be deliminated between the 
two above named States ; 

Upon examination of all the documents furnished by the parties litigant, and 
especially : 

1st : With regard to Columbia : 

On the statement of Don Francisco Silvela, counsel of the Legation of Colombia 
in Spain ; 

Of the second and third Memorials presented in the name of the Republic of 
Colombia, by Mr. Poincare, of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Paris ; 

Of an opinion of Mr. Maura, Deputy in the Spanish Cortes, President of the 
Royal Academy of Jurisprudence of Madrid, upon the boundary question between 
Columbia and Costa Rica ; 

Of another opinion of Dr. Simon de la Rosa y Lopez, Professor of Political Law 
at the University of Seville, and his collaborators ; 

Of a chronological Summary of the muniments of territorial title of Colombia ; 
and 

Of the numerous geographic maps and texts, in the original, as well as translated 
and annotated, delivered to us by the representative of Colombia, specially accredited 
to us for the present dispute ; 

2nd : With regard to Costa Rica : 

Of the Works of Mr. Manuel M. de Peralta, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary of that Republic at Paris, entitled : 

" Limites de Costa Rica y Colombia^ 

" Costa Rica y Costa y Musquitos." 

" Jurisdiction territoriale de Costa liica." 



37 

Of the Statement of the muniments of territorial title of the Republic of Costa 
Bica ; 

Of the Reply to the Statement of the Republic of Colombia ; 

Of the Historico-Geograpic Atlas of Costa Rica, Veragua and the Mosquito 
Coast ; 

Of the volume of Mr. Peralta, " Historical Geography and Territorial Rights of 
Costa Rica " : 

Etc., etc., 

And in general of all the decisions, capitulations, royal orders, provisions, royal 
cedulas, laws, decreed and promulgated by the ancient Spanish Monarchy, absolute 
sovereign with the right freely to dispose of the territories which have subsequently 
become part of the two Republics ; 

Having made a minute and profound study of said instruments, to us submitted 
by the parties, especially of the royal cedulas of July 27, 1513, of September 6, 1521, 
of the royal provision of April 21, 1529, of the royal cedulas of March 2, 1557, of 
January 11, and May 9, 1541, of January 21, 1557, of February 23 and July 18, 1560, 
of August 4, and 9, 1561, of September 8, 1568, of June 28, 1568, of July 17, 1572, of 
the Capitulation of Pardo of December 1, 1573, of the Recopilation of the Laws of 
the Indies of 1680, particularly of Laws IV, VI, IX of that compilation, of the royal 
cedulas of July 21, and November 13, 1722, of August 20, 1729, of May 24, 1740, 
of October 31, 1742, of November 30, 1756, of the different instructions 
emanating from the Spanish Sovereign and addressed to the Superior Authorities of 
the Vice Royalty of Santa Fe as well as those of the Captaincy General of Guatemala 
in the course of the eighteenth century, and in the years following ; of the royal 
orders of 1803 and 1805, of the stipulations of the treaty concluded in 1825 between 
the two independent Republics, etc., etc. 

And conscious of the importance of our high mission as well as of the very great 
honor that has been shown us in being chosen as judge in the present dispute, having 
neglected nothing to obtain an esact appreciation of the weight of the documents 
relied on by each of the two countries ; 

Decide : 

The Frontier between the Republics of Colombia and Costa Rica shall be formed 
by the counterfort of the cordillera which starts from Cape Mona, on the Atlantic 
Ocean, and closes on the North the valley of the Tariare or Rio Sisola ; then by the 
chain of division of waters between the Atlantic and Pacific, to nine degrees, about, 



38 

of latitude ; it will follow then the line of division of waters between the Ch^riqui 
Viejo and the aflauents of Gulf Dulce, to end at Point Burica on the Pacific Ocean. 

As regards the islands, groups of islands, keys, banks, situated in the Atlantic 
Ocean, near the coast, East and Southeast of Point Mona, these islands, whatever 
their names and extent, shall form part of the territory of Colombia. Those 
which are situate to the West and Northwest of said point shall belong to the Ee- 
public of Costa Eica. 

As to the islands farther distant from the mainland and included between the 
Mosquito Coast and the Isthmus of Panama, to wit : Mangle Chico, Mangle Grande, 
Oayos de Alburquerque, San Andres, Santa Catalina, Providencia, Escudo de Veragua, 
as well as all other islands, keys and banks, belonging to the ancient Province of Car- 
tagena, under the name of Canton de San Andres, it is understood that the territory 
of these islands without any exception, belongs to the United States of Colombia. 

On the Pacific Coast, Colombia shall likewise possess, beginning from the Burica 
Islands, and including these, all the islands situate to the East of the point of the 
.same name, those situate to the West of this point being awarded to Costa Eica, 

Done at Eambouillet, in duplicate, September 11, 1900. 

(Signed) Emilie Loubet. 
(Seal of the President) 



Appendix E. 

LETTEE FEOM MR. DELCASSE, FEENCH MINISTER OF FOEEIGN 
AFFAIES TO SENOE DE PEEALTA, COSTA EICAN MINISTEE TO 
PAEIS. 

(Translation from the French.) 

Copy. 

Paris, September 18, 1900. 
Mr. Minister : 

In the third paragraph of the dispositive part of the arbitral award rendered by 
the President of the Eepubic on the eleventh of this month, in regard to the boundary 



39 

between Colombia and Costa Rica, the ■words, " United States of Colombia," have 
been employed to designate the Republic of Colombi u 

In the name of the Arbitrator, I have the honor to notify you, to the end of 
avoiding all confusion in the future, that these two designations should be considered 
as synonymous, in the instrument in question, and that they apply alike to the State 
of Colombia. 

Accept the assurance of the high consideration, witli which I have the honor to 
be, Mr. Minister, 

Your very humble and very obedient servant, 

Delcasse. 
Mb. Peealta, 

Minister of Costa Rica at Paris. 



Appendix F. 



LETTER OF SENOR DE PERALTA, COSTA RICAN MINISTER AT PARIS 
TO M. delcasse, FRENCH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

(Translation from the Spanish) 

LEGATION OF COSTA RICA. 

Paris, September 29, 1900. 
Mb. Ministeb : 

Wishing to avoid all possible confusion with respect to the intentions of His 
Excellency, the President of the French Republic, Arbitrator in the dispute concern- 
ing territorial boundaries between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia, as they 
appear from the arbitral award, whicli he was pleased to pronounce on the eleventh of 
this month, I have the honor to address Your Excellency in order respectfully to 
state to you that the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica interprets the first 
paragraph of the dispositive portion of the decision in the following manner : 

" The boundary between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia 
" shall be formed by the counterfort of the cordilleia which starts from Cape 
" Mona, on the Atlantic Ocean, and closes on the North the valley of the 



40 

" Rio Tarire or Sixaola near the mouth of thatriver ; it will follow in a West- 
" Southwesterly direction along the left bank of this river, as far as the conflu- 
" ence of the Kiver Yurquiu or Zhorquin (called also Sixaola, Culebras, or 
" Dorados) to longitude 82° 50' West of Greenwich 85° 10' West Paris, and 
" 9° 83' North latitude. Here the boundary line will cross the thalweg of 
" the Tarire on the left bank of tbe Yurquin, and will continue in a Southerly 
" direction along the chain of division of waters between the basins of the 
" Yurquiu on the East and of the Uren on the West ; thereafter along the 
" chain of division of waters between the Atlantic and Pacific as far as about 
" the ninth degree of latitude; it shall thence follow the line of division of 
" waters between the Chiriqui Viejo and the affluents of Gulf Dulce, to ter- 
" minate at Point Burica." 

Point Mona is situated at Longitude 82° 39' West of Greenwich, 84° 69' West of 
Paris, and 9° 39' North latitude. 

Point Burica is situated at Longitude 82° 53' West of Greenwich, 85° 15' West of 
Paris, and 8° 2' North Latitude. 

The intersection of the boundary line with the ninth parallel is at longitude 82° 
45' West of Greenwich, 89° 5' West of Paris. 

This interpretation conforms with the evident intentions of the Arbitrator and 
with the configuration of the territory as well as with the terms of the agreement of 
arbitration. 

It perfectly corresponds to the desire of establishing with certainty and stability 
a natural boundary, and there is but a very slight departure from a right line drawn 
between Point Mona and Point Burica, which is, so to say, the fundamental idea of 
the Arbitrator. 

I hope that this interpretation will be accepted by His Excellency, the President 
of the French Republic, as corresponding as nearly as possible with his lofty inten- 
tions, and my Government would thank him very much if he should be pleased to 
confirm this interpretation by an explanatory instrument. 

Please accept, Mr. Minister, the expressions of the very high consideration, with 
■which, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency's very humble and very obedient 
servant. 

(Signed) Manual M. Peralta. 

His Excellency Senor Delcasse 

Minister of Foreign Affiiirs 
of the French Republic. 



41 

Appendix G. 

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

Paris, November 23, 1900. 
Me. Minister : 

Answering the request which you have been pleased to express in your letters of 
September 29th and October 23rd ultimo, I have the honor to inform you that, on 
account of the lack of exact geographic data, the Arbitrator was not able to fix the 
boundary except by means of general indications ; I think, therefore, that there would 
be difficulty in fixing them on a map. But there is no doubt, as you observe, that, in 
conformity with the terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of Paris of January 20, 
1886, this boundary line must be drawn within the confines of the territory in dispute, 
as they are determined by the text of said articles. 

It is in accordance with these principles that it is for the Republics of Columbia 
and Costa Rica to proceed to the physical delimitation of their frontiers, and the 
Arbitrator trusts, on this point, to the spirit of conciliation and good understanding 
with which the two Governments in litigation have up to the present been inspired. 

Accept the assurances of the high consideration, with which, I have the honor to 
be, Mr. Minister, your very humble and obedient servant. 

(Signed) Delcassib. 

Mr. Manuel de Peralta, 

Minister of Costa Rica in Paris. 



[10638J 



B^ 



S. 



■ ■ ,T7.Jtlt^Wt?I?JR3W7i5 1 , 



jJ,i l l ii ] ' M«PW!li>.l liiWiiiPi^^ 



A 



w \ 



)-i 



s 



t 



is 



^ 



c 



-^0' 



o > 



^ V 






o V- 



1,=;*^° c'^V » 






^> 






1 r*^ xi 






J-* 



'^ov^ 



-=1-"' •■««'. ^•'o* •~^^»- "oV 






o V 



o V 






.<; 



o V 






4 o^ 





































O 






^- y% »• /\ ^^- /\ •.^- /\ ^-^ ^^% ^1 



L / U ">> 

AUGUSTINE • .:. 



^ %.^ ^Jfe:- \/^ />^^^ ^ -^^ 



■5-..^^ 









u .<^ 



fis^ 





